Unlawful Possession of Marijuana

My question involves criminal law for the state of: New York

So I got busted in my dorms, in NY, yet I want to talk about the Constitution and law rather than my case. Are there any legal experts here who would care to look at the following and determine whether or not it would have any type of effect in court?

If we are to agree that the Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) makes it so certain rights under the Bill of Rights apply to the States, couldn't one argue that...

Under the 4th Amendment, we have a right to privacy. While the word "privacy" is not specifically written, it is generally accepted to be implied. The courts have ruled over and over again that this is correct (as far as I can tell).

Quote:

---

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

---

-Stanley v. Georgia

Quote:

---

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”

---

- Lawrence v. Texas

Quote:

---

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions

---

-Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health

Thus, wouldn't marijuana go hand in hand with this? As long as you are not smoking in public, shouldn't you be protected under the 4th Amendment? Couldn't you also argue that if you can deny medical assistance (Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health ), that you can provide your own (medical marijuana)?

The 4th Amendment gives us a right to unreasonable searches and seizures. Seizing me or my property (marijuana, paraphernalia, and my money in court) for marijuana possession or use in my own home would have to be considered unreasonable, simply because of my right to engage in private activities which don't effect the public in the slightest.

Quote:

---

"[Liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

---

-Meyer v. Nebraska.

Common law dictates that I have a right of privacy, and even further generally states that my home is my castle and in my home, my rule goes. How can any court of law, with a straight face, say I was guilty of criminal activity when they themselves state my home is my castle (if common law is to be said to be valid)? How can anyone tell me what I can or cannot do in the privacy of my own home, as long as I am not hurting anyone?

Quote:

---

§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. (Formerly §16. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

---

- NYS Constitution


So the common law which founded this country is valid under NYS Constitution, and anything which violates Constitution is abrogated, and the right of privacy under common law does not violate the Constitution. So, shouldn't laws against private marijuana use be abrogated, as they clearly violate the common law this country was founded upon, and subsequently the Constitution according to what I previously stated?

-------------------

Quote:

---

privacy. The condition or state of being free from public attention to intrusion into or interference with one's acts or decisions.

---

-Black's Law Dictionary.

Quote:

---

§ 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state

---

- NYS Civil Rights

Don't these two seem to contradict each other? We (individually) are the supreme sovereigns, and unless the people grant the government power over us (I never granted the government to have the power to regulate what I put into my body, and even if I had tried to, my rights are inalienable, and what I put into my body is my liberty...thus it cannot be taken away). Yet, my right of privacy states I have the right to be private from the people. So how can the people bypass my privacy rights, by granting away my sovereignty rights?

Edit: Couldn't it be argued that these laws also become null and void due to the fact they were founded on discriminatory principles? What ever happened to "equal protection?" These laws violated the civil rights of Mexicans and Negroes over discrimination, thus how can they be said to stand up to Constitutional scrutiny?

"Marijuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice." (Hearst newspapers nationwide, 1934. )

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Harry Anslinger

"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men." -Harry Anslinger

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." - Harry Anslinger

These were the type of arguments given to Congress during the legislative meetings to pass the anti-marijuana bills.

Uh huh.

Nice try.

Won't work... you really didn't think you FINALLY came up with the silver bullet to make pot legal, did you?

You do have a right to privacy. However, police, when possessed of either a search warrant or probable cause, may invade your privacy to pursue criminals.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Uh huh.

Nice try.

Won't work... you really didn't think you FINALLY came up with the silver bullet to make pot legal, did you?

You do have a right to privacy. However, police, when possessed of either a search warrant or probable cause, may invade your privacy to pursue criminals.

---

You completely missed the point.

Maybe you should reread the post, as I'm not talking about cops having the right to invade our privacy to find criminals, but the fact that regardless of public opinion, our home is our domain and supporting the "general welfare" (by banning marijuana in public) can't apply to a person's private domain.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: New York

So I got busted in my dorms, in NY, yet I want to talk about the Constitution and law rather than my case. Are there any legal experts here who would care to look at the following and determine whether or not it would have any type of effect in court?

If we are to agree that the Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) makes it so certain rights under the Bill of Rights apply to the States, couldn't one argue that...

---

It is TRUE, the 4th AM has been incorporated to apply to the states by and through the 14th AM: Wolf v. Colorado, 1949: The Exclusionary rule was made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 1961. So the "full force" of the 4th AM applies to the states.

Exacty HOW were you busted? Were you observed smoking it when the door was opened by a roommate? Elucidate further!

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

It is TRUE, the 4th AM has been incorporated to apply to the states by and through the 14th AM: Wolf v. Colorado, 1949: The Exclusionary rule was made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 1961. So the "full force" of the 4th AM applies to the states.

Exacty HOW were you busted? Were you observed smoking it when the door was opened by a roommate? Elucidate further!

---

I was in my dorm room at University (it's in NY, but I don't know if I should state exactly which one), door closed, watching a moving with my roommate and a friend. We were vaporizing (did one bowl with the Volcano), and then an RA said she smelled marijuana, and needed the opinions of two others (usually they only need one other opinion, but the first RA she asked said she didn't know....which leads me to believe the RA who first smelled it was lying because she is the most anti-weed RA in my building, and the other RA she asked that gave approval is anti-weed as well) before calling the cops. She got three opinions (including hers), then she called the cops. Even the cops admitted when they got in the room it just smelled "funky," not one of them said it smelled like "marijuana."

So, the cops were called and they came and my roommate when out and talked to them. He's an idiot and let them in on a "knock and talk" basis, and then they came in started talking. They came in and did a preliminary search (walked around the room, looked around) but couldn't find anything. They continued to talk (more like scream, threaten, and berate) to us, because they couldn't find anything. Twenty minutes go by, and the cops still haven't found anything. The "head" cop does one more sweep through, and he found a leaf on the floor near my roommates chair. His first words were "what is this?" (what happened to "immediate incriminating evidence" in the three-prong plain view doctrine?), and my roommate said it was probably just a leaf that was dragged in on someone's shoe, as a lot of people hang out in my room (truth).

My roommate and the cop argued for a couple minutes, and the cop couldn't get a "yes, it's marijuana" out of us. So, they sat there for another five minutes screaming "we're going to get dogs and they are going to tear this place apart," and then they took my roommate outside and convinced him to give up what we had to avoid that. Again, he was an idiot and said "okay." He gave up 11 grams and over $600 worth of paraphernalia, I gave up 1.1 grams. We both got UPMs.

Everything could have been avoided had my roommate not caved, or had I stood up and said "no" when they initially came in. I was high, he was high, and it was the first time we'd ever had trouble with the cops (for both of us), so I really can't be angry that he screwed up. He was probably nervous and didn't know what to do, as was I.

Your roommate consented to the entry.

Your roommate admitted to the crime.

Neither violates the law. Police have the ability to question suspects... and, to bring in dogs with probable cause.

Probable cause being three eyewitness reports.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Your roommate consented to the entry.

Your roommate admitted to the crime.

Neither violates the law. Police have the ability to question suspects... and, to bring in dogs with probable cause.

Probable cause being three eyewitness reports.

---

And I am saying the 4th Amendment protects our right to partake in private activities, regardless of public opinion. The NYS Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, also states I am the "supreme sovereign," and with my right to privacy, no group of people can sign away my rights. Thus, the marijuana laws are unconstitutional.

Unless you want to say the sodomy laws that were ruled unconstitutional should be reversed, since sodomy has largely been considered "licentious" behavior, and licentious behavior is illegal. The only reason it's allowed is because it's done in the privacy of one's home, which is exactly where I was when I was caught possessing marijuana (school's policy is that the Constitution is valid, and the Constitution states common law is valid, and common law says my home is my castle...thus my dorm is my castle).

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

And I am saying the 4th Amendment protects our right to partake in private activities, regardless of public opinion.

---

And you would be wrong.

Activities may be ruled illegal... and are, all the time.

Look at child molestation. Are you saying that child molestation should be legal as long as the door is locked?

The federal government has the authority to restrict the transportation, manufacture and use of substances deemed harmful.

You don't want your next door neighbor stocking up on plutonium. The rest of us don't want you smoking dope.

If you want it changed, write your congressman/woman.

Quote:

---

The NYS Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, also states I am the "supreme sovereign," and with my right to privacy, no group of people can sign away my rights. Thus, the marijuana laws are unconstitutional.

---

And you would be wrong.

Quote:

---

Unless you want to say the sodomy laws that were ruled unconstitutional should be reversed, since sodomy has largely been considered "licentious" behavior, and licentious behavior is illegal.

---

Show me where sodomy laws were shown to be unconstitutional.

Yes, they have been repealed in many jurisdictions, but show me where they were ruled unconstitutional. Show me where the places where sodomy is CURRENTLY illegal are in violation of the Constitution.

While you are in the law library, find any case law where the right to smoke pot was guaranteed under the Constitution.

Quote:

---

The only reason it's allowed is because it's done in the privacy of one's home, which is exactly where I was when I was caught possessing marijuana (school's policy is that the Constitution is valid, and the Constitution states common law is valid, and common law says my home is my castle...thus my dorm is my castle).

---

And that brings up the last tidbit of information.

You were on campus property. I am quite sure that your housing agreement allowed RA's to call police and initiate searches... and you AGREED to it when you signed up.

Check your agreement before you get all high and mighty... well, in between finding a new place to live.

Yes, they have the right to kick you out of the dorm for smoking from a high tech bong... and being stupid enough to not only smoke pot in the dorm but also to show the cop where the stash was.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

And you would be wrong.

Activities may be ruled illegal... and are, all the time.

Look at child molestation. Are you saying that child molestation should be legal as long as the door is locked?

---

Child Molestation infringes upon the rights of the child. Who's rights does my marijuana use infringe upon? The microscopic organisms living on my floor?

There's a reason some personal activities are banned...they infringe upon other individual's rights. Marijuana use infringes upon NO ONE's rights.

Quote:

---

The federal government has the authority to restrict the transportation, manufacture and use of substances deemed harmful.

You don't want your next door neighbor stocking up on plutonium. The rest of us don't want you smoking dope.

---

If I can't stock up on plutonium, how can the government? Government is merely a large scale version of individual self-government: protecting rights of life, liberty, property. That's why government is formed, to protect those rights on a large scale. If the people can't stock up on plutonium, how can we rightfully give government the power to do so.

Quote:

---

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

---

-Frederic Bastiat

Also, unless you know how to grow plutonium, you have to purchase it. The Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce....growing your own marijuana is not involved with commerce.

Quote:

---

If you want it changed, write your congressman/woman.

---

Yes, because that works. I love how you're trying to tell me, that because a group of legislators write something down on paper, an act automatically becomes "just" and "legal."

Justice [law] derives from morality, it's the whole reason government was created in the first place. How can one tell me a bit of scripture determines what is right and what is wrong, and that as soon as that scripture changes, so does morality?

Quote:

---

Show me where sodomy laws were shown to be unconstitutional.

Yes, they have been repealed in many jurisdictions, but show me where they were ruled unconstitutional. Show me where the places where sodomy is CURRENTLY illegal are in violation of the Constitution.

---

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'” -Lawrence v. Texas

Quote:

---

While you are in the law library, find any case law where the right to smoke pot was guaranteed under the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

---

- Tenth Amendment (US Constitution)

Quote:

---

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

---

- NYS Constitution

Quote:

---

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

---

- United States Constitution

Quote:

---

liberty. 1. Freedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint

---

-Black's Law Dictionary

---

We have the rights of "life, liberty, and property" (as I've shown), and judges have consistently ruled our liberty can't be violated in the privacy of our homes. If you want to argue that letting the cops in rids me of my liberty, you must also agree that if a homosexual couple lets a cop into their apartment, and he sees them looking at homosexual pornography or sees them mid-hump, the homosexual couple need be arrested. That's exactly what Lawrence v. Texas argued against.

Quote:

---

§3. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this state to all humankind; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his or her opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state. (Amended by vote of the people November 7, 2001.)

---

- NYS Constitution

Sodomy is no less licentious (according to most Americans) than marijuana use. Yet, sodomy is constitutional, as long as it's done in the privacy of one's home.

Quote:

---

§ 2. Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state.

---

- NYS Civil Rights, Bill of Rights Section 2

Quote:

---

privacy. The condition or state of being free from public attention to intrusion into or interference with one's acts or decisions.

---

- Black's Law Dictionary (dictionary used by the Supreme Court)

I already explained the privacy issue, and how no group of people can sign away my sovereignty when in the privacy of my own home.

How can anyone tell me I don't have the right to do to my body as I wish? I've made it clear we all have the right to live our lives away from public scrutiny, and that in our houses, no one can tell us what we can do....as long as we aren't violating other's rights.

One more thing.

Notice how an Amendment to the Constitution was needed to prohibit alcohol, yet there has never been an amendment to prohibit marijuana or any other drugs. Thus, how can the Federal prohibition of marijuana be considered constitutional?

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

One more thing.

Notice how an Amendment to the Constitution was needed to prohibit alcohol, yet there has never been an amendment to prohibit marijuana or any other drugs. Thus, how can the Federal prohibition of marijuana be considered constitutional?

---

Your argument is one of the exclusion of evidence gathered as a product of an unlawful search!!

This the Exclusionary rule I refered to, applicable to the states. You can argue your constitutional authorities with the court.

How was the search illegal?

They consented to the entry... and then told the cops where the stuff was.

Our young friend wants to pull out Black's and believe he has the right to smoke pot in the dorm because he really really wants to..

He is wrong...

However, if you wish to help him look like a moron in court, feel free to do it without me.

Oh, and kid, do you really think you are trying something new?

Search for the user "daniel"... he used the same argument... of course, we haven't seen him in, what, a year?

You will have to go back quite a while.

By the way, nice research on the LvT ruling... I forgot about that. You got me.

Doesn't stretch to the use of illegal drugs. But nice research.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

How was the search illegal?

---

I never meant to imply the search was unlawful.


I only meant it to tell the poster if he maintains this as a basis, he must constitutionally prove it.

Exactly.

I would also caution the OP against saying, "The high tech bong I was using to smoke the pot prevented smell."

That may add more charges to his tale of woe.

Op, let me ask you this... if this was a realistic defense, why do you think it hasn't been tried before? Do you really think that you came up with something that the thousands of lawyers (not to mention NORML) that try these cases on a daily basis wouldn't have brought forward?

Really?

"The high tech bong I was using to smoke the pot prevented smell."

guess not? did the pipe salesman tell you that? :rolleyes:

true there is no burning of vegetative matter or smoke but...
VAPORS HAVE ODORS TOO. (ever been to a gas station?)

600.00 dollars in pipes? and no .99 cent can of air freshener from the dollar store? :wallbang:

Jeff i hope you get this joke:

Quote:

---

Quoting Jeff

---

Exactly.

I would also caution the OP against saying, "The high tech bong I was using to smoke the pot prevented smell."

That may add more charges to his tale of woe.

Op, let me ask you this... if this was a realistic defense, why do you think it hasn't been tried before? Do you really think that you came up with something that the thousands of lawyers (not to mention NORML) that try these cases on a daily basis wouldn't have brought forward?

Really?

---

yes Jeff the op does think its different now that he has comcast digital voice!

Quote:

---

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

---

Where do you see anything about "Congress shall have the power to make laws regarding drugs and intoxicating substances?" I do not see it, thus Congress has NO right to make laws (1937 federal marijuana ban) dealing with intoxicating substances.

Now you may make an argument stating that Congress has the right to "regulate commerce," yet NOT ONE argument to pass the 1937 Federal Marijuana ban mentioned commerce. Thus, the Federal ban on marijuana has been unconstitutional since day one, and according to Marbury v. Madison it is null and void as it violates the Constitutional. Prove me wrong.
----------------------------------------

The individual State laws are unconstitutional as well, for the fact that according to West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, and I quote,

Quote:

---

One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;

---

The New York State Legislature of 1927 had no right to vote on the banning or marijuana, nor would they have a right to vote on the matter today.

My right of life (and liberty) allows me to do with my life, as I choose, as long as I am not harming any other individual's rights in the process. The State's had no right to vote whether or not people could use mind-altering substances, nor can the States vote on whether or not an individual can self-medicate. Banning marijuana violates both of those fundamental rights.

Quote:

---

No person shall, because of race, color, creed or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state

---

- NYS Constitution

I posted (earlier) the excuses the government used in their passing of marijuana legislation. Their excuses were blatantly race driven, and according to the constitution, that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

How much more must I show you before you finally understand?
--------------

Quote:

---

[Preamble] We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

---

Quote:

---

"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

---

People v. Ruggles

Quote:

---

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation

---

-Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

Quote:

---

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food."

---

-BIBLE, Genesis 1:29-30

Religious rights be damned?

Quote:

---

Quoting THEAMAZINGCHAN

---

Jeff i hope you get this joke:




yes Jeff the op does think its different now that he has comcast digital voice!

---

Yes, I did get it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

Where do you see anything about "Congress shall have the power to make laws regarding drugs and intoxicating substances?" I do not see it, thus Congress has NO right to make laws (1937 federal marijuana ban) dealing with intoxicating substances.

Now you may make an argument stating that Congress has the right to "regulate commerce," yet NOT ONE argument to pass the 1937 Federal Marijuana ban mentioned commerce. Thus, the Federal ban on marijuana has been unconstitutional since day one, and according to Marbury v. Madison it is null and void as it violates the Constitutional. Prove me wrong.
----------------------------------------

The individual State laws are unconstitutional as well, for the fact that according to West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, and I quote,



The New York State Legislature of 1927 had no right to vote on the banning or marijuana, nor would they have a right to vote on the matter today.

My right of life (and liberty) allows me to do with my life, as I choose, as long as I am not harming any other individual's rights in the process. The State's had no right to vote whether or not people could use mind-altering substances, nor can the States vote on whether or not an individual can self-medicate. Banning marijuana violates both of those fundamental rights.

- NYS Constitution

I posted (earlier) the excuses the government used in their passing of marijuana legislation. Their excuses were blatantly race driven, and according to the constitution, that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

How much more must I show you before you finally understand?
--------------



People v. Ruggles

-Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

-BIBLE, Genesis 1:29-30

Religious rights be damned?

---

Again, do you really think that you are stumbling upon the silver bullet that makes the possession of illegal drugs legal?

You are incorrect. The Food and Drug Administration regulates drugs that can be used safely and in what quantities and prescribed by whom.

Grass didn't make the list... EXCEPT in certain jurisdictions and THEN only by DOCTORS.

You didn't mention your medical degree....

The constitution grants the legislative branch to make laws that regulate our lives... and they do every day.

For instance, show me in the constitution where murder is illegal. Or how about drunk driving? Child molestation? Cyberstalking? Rape? The creation of a nuclear device?

The founding fathers assumed that state and local governments would make those laws as necessary going forward to make our lives better, to regulate commerce and to provide a criminal code.

To date, that criminal code includes direct references to illegal drugs.

You lose.

Here...

FDA Milestones

Start with, say, 1965.

Ya know what... nevermind.

I am through trying to stop you from making a monumental ass of yourself in open court.

Here is what you do.

You bring all of your arguments to court. Make sure you make copies for the judge, the DA and anyone else you think should read your tome.

Plan on spending the day there. Use charts and graphs. Make sure you bring the volcano with you so that you can show the court what you were using at the time.

Tell the judge just what you told us and demand the right to sue the police department for millions because of the people they have imprisoned illegally for 232 years.

Let us know what happens.

oh, and when you get to prison, tell Daniel Patos we said hello...

Danny's pre incarceration "Drugs should be legal because the government doesn't have the authority to regulate them" posting...

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

You are incorrect. The Food and Drug Administration regulates drugs that can be used safely and in what quantities and prescribed by whom.

---

So you are saying the government has partial-ownership of our individual bodies? If they don't like what we do to them, they can tell us "no," and we must cease and desist? That's lovely, considering the PEOPLE created the government, and as I said, matters involving fundamental rights (you know, the right to control one's body) cannot be voted upon.

The government can kiss my ass when it comes to them telling me how I should live my life, and what I can or cannot do to my body.

If you are willing to state the government has the power to regulate your personal life (not affecting others) choices, including what foods and drugs you use for your own purposes...you are saying the government should be able to regulate how many calories you consume in one day. Are you willing accept that?

I could argue the 9th Amendment protects us against that kind of intrusion of our fundamental liberties.

Quote:

---

For instance, show me in the constitution where murder is illegal. Or how about drunk driving? Child molestation? Cyberstalking? Rape? The creation of a nuclear device?

---

The Bill of Rights was created for the government to protect your rights against those acts.

-Drunk Driving legislation: Unconstitutional. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)
-Child molestation legislation: Right to life, liberty, property. A child molester is violating those fundamental rights of the child.
-Rape legislation: Same as above.
-Murder legislation: Same as above.
-Cyberstalking legislation: Never even heard of this.


Also, you want to argue the FDA can say what we can and can't put into our bodies based on their relevance to medical benefits...how does that apply to cigarettes or alcohol?

Damn kid, drama much?

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

So you are saying the government has partial-ownership of our individual bodies? If they don't like what we do to them, they can tell us "no," and we must cease and desist?

---

Nope, just the substances it is legal to put into them.

The only "bodies" that are being regulated are the bodies of the plants... and they ain't complaining.

Quote:

---

That's lovely, considering the PEOPLE created the government, and as I said, matters involving fundamental rights (you know, the right to control one's body) cannot be voted upon.

---

They are everyday.

Quote:

---

The government can kiss my ass when it comes to them telling me how I should live my life, and what I can or cannot do to my body.

---

Boy, is YOUR life gonna suck.

Quote:

---

If you are willing to state the government has the power to regulate your personal life (not affecting others) choices, including what foods and drugs you use for your own purposes...you are saying the government should be able to regulate how many calories you consume in one day. Are you willing accept that?

---

Um, that was recently argued in Berkley.

however, we are not talking about too much of a LEGAL substance. We are talking about a substance that is illegal to manufacture, possess or ingest.

Quote:

---

I could argue the 9th Amendment protects us against that kind of intrusion of our fundamental liberties.

---

And, as normal, you would be wrong.

Quote:

---

The Bill of Rights was created for the government to protect your rights against those acts.

-Drunk Driving legislation: Unconstitutional. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html)

---

OHHHH... so Drunk Driving is unconstitutional?

Wow, what an interesting fantasy life you must have.

Quote:

---

-Child molestation legislation: Right to life, liberty, property. A child molester is violating those fundamental rights of the child.

---

Show me the part of the constitution that names the crime and it's penalty.

Oh, you say, it doesn't... it looks to other legislation for that.

As does pot regulation... and there are some substances that have been deemed too dangerous to own. Pot would be one.

That would be the government protecting you from yourself.

Quote:

---

-Rape legislation: Same as above.
-Murder legislation: Same as above.

---

See above...

Quote:

---

-Cyberstalking legislation: Never even heard of this.

---

neither did the founding fathers... but they created a system where the constitution was a living document that can evolve.

Oh, and if you are REALLY still debating the property thing, may I recommend Kelso v City of New London?

Quote:

---

Also, you want to argue the FDA can say what we can and can't put into our bodies based on their relevance to medical benefits...how does that apply to cigarettes or alcohol?

---

Did you even READ what I linked? Both are discussed.

These discussions go better if you listen to the other side.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


---------------------

Where do you see anything about "Congress shall have the power to make laws regarding drugs and intoxicating substances?" I do not see it, thus Congress has NO right to make laws (1937 federal marijuana ban) dealing with intoxicating substances.

---

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the General Welfare clause cited in Section 8, clause 1 here??

Can this be interpreted to regulate drugs?

Why do you think the Founding Fathers included it??

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the General Welfare clause cited in Section 8, clause 1 here??

Can this be interpreted to regulate drugs?

Why do you think the Founding Fathers included it??

---

It's called General Welfare for a reason, otherwise the Founders would have just put "Welfare."

The prohibition of marijuana (or any other drug) doesn't help me nor the MILLIONS in prison, therefore it doesn't help the General Welfare.

Quote:

---

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars

---

-James Madison (Federalist 41)

Quote:

---

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one...."

---

-James Madison

Quote:

---

Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.

---

- Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

`The constitutional {test} of a right application must always be, whether it be for a purpose of {general} or {local} nature. If the former, there can be no want of constitutional power.... Whatever relates to the general order of the finances, to the general interests of trade etc., being general objects are constitutional ones for {the application} of {money}.''

---

- Alexander Hamilton (emphasis added)

Quote:

---

This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.

---

- Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

---

The States supposed that by their Tenth Amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers ...

---

- Thomas Jefferson

It's a shame the Constitution went from being a "clear-cut," "anyone can read it" document to being a brain teaser. How far we've come.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7zvGxJ8J1I

Edit 2: "General:"

Quote:

---

1. involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
2. involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind, or group
3. not confined by specialization or careful limitation

---

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Again, please try to start a constitutional argument because you got caught with pot in the dorm.

make sure you get it on video. It will be worth it.

By the way... here is how it is going to go...

You:"Your honor, I would like to bring up the unconstitutionality of this law... you see, my body is my property and any I wish to...."
Judge:"Are you an attorney?"
You:"Well, no, but I have done a great deal of study on this project."
Judge:"Was it in a law school class?"
You:"No"
Judge:"Well then, what say we talk to someone who HAS been to law school... counselor, why don't you begin? Are you going to present the unconstitutionality of drug possession?"
Your attorney (that doesn't want to look like an ass in the next edition of ABA weekly):"no, your honor. I would, however, like to discuss diversion and parole in exchange for a guilty plea"
Judge:"You may proceed. Son, let your attorney do the talking from here on out...."

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Again, please try to start a constitutional argument because you got caught with pot in the dorm.

make sure you get it on video. It will be worth it.

By the way... here is how it is going to go...

You:"Your honor, I would like to bring up the unconstitutionality of this law... you see, my body is my property and any I wish to...."
Judge:"Are you an attorney?"
You:"Well, no, but I have done a great deal of study on this project."
Judge:"Was it in a law school class?"
You:"No"
Judge:"Well then, what say we talk to someone who HAS been to law school... counselor, why don't you begin? Are you going to present the unconstitutionality of drug possession?"
Your attorney (that doesn't want to look like an ass in the next edition of ABA weekly):"no, your honor. I would, however, like to discuss diversion and parole in exchange for a guilty plea"
Judge:"You may proceed. Son, let your attorney do the talking from here on out...."

---

You have yet to disprove me.

All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

You have yet to disprove me.

All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution.

---

That's only because you haven't been paying attention to anyone but you.

It is common to get so excited about an idea that you cannot see where it is wrong.

General welfare means those rules in the health and wellbeing of the entire country.

To that end, the FDA and DEA were formed to identify those substances that were against the general good and to enforce the laws written around them.

To aid in the removal of dangerous substances, legislation (at the federal, state and local level) has been created to make sure that the possession, ingestion, creation or distribution of these substances is a crime complete with penalty.

The Constitution provides the ability to the legislature to create those laws and standards necessary to provide the environment desired.

In the same way that specific law can be created to prevent someone from driving too fast, beating his/her child or flying their aircraft over the pentagon, law can be created to restrict those behaviors deemed in opposition to the general welfare.

Your continual references to privacy make no sense. Your roommate consented to the search and then handed them the pot.

You do NOT have the right to hide illegal substances in your body... whether that be in your bloodstream or in condoms swallowed as you cross the border.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

That's only because you haven't been paying attention to anyone but you.

It is common to get so excited about an idea that you cannot see where it is wrong.

General welfare means those rules in the health and wellbeing of the entire country.

To that end, the FDA and DEA were formed to identify those substances that were against the general good and to enforce the laws written around them.

To aid in the removal of dangerous substances, legislation (at the federal, state and local level) has been created to make sure that the possession, ingestion, creation or distribution of these substances is a crime complete with penalty.

The Constitution provides the ability to the legislature to create those laws and standards necessary to provide the environment desired.

In the same way that specific law can be created to prevent someone from driving too fast, beating his/her child or flying their aircraft over the pentagon, law can be created to restrict those behaviors deemed in opposition to the general welfare.

Your continual references to privacy make no sense. Your roommate consented to the search and then handed them the pot.

You do NOT have the right to hide illegal substances in your body... whether that be in your bloodstream or in condoms swallowed as you cross the border.

---

Again, you are wrong.

The general Welfare clause is only applicable if it helps everyone. In no way, shape, or form can that clause be applicable to marijuana use, as it does not help everyone.

Do you not see the flaw in your logic?

Driving too fast: Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Beating child: Child's rights are violated.
Flying over Pentagon: Flying, again, is a privilege, not a right. Privileges can be taken away, rights cannot be.

This is the problem with this country, people are too ignorant to understand and grasp simple concepts. The Constitution, both at the Federal and State level, was created to prevent government from overstepping it's bounds. The Constitutions were created GRANTING government specific powers, not giving the government the power to GRANT the people power/rights.

My rights of "life, liberty, and property" supersede ANY law the government passes, if those laws violate my aforementioned rights (note: the government has the power to strip away those rights IF I violate someone else's rights...smoking, eating, vaporizing a plant doesn't violate anyone's rights). The whole idea of Law is to reach justice, not to oppress a group of people.

My right to live my life the way I want to live it, regardless of public opinion, cannot be stripped away from me. As long as I am not harming an individual with my personal choices, I cannot have my rights stricken from me.

By arresting me, fining me, jailing me, et al for possessing a plant, which harms NO ONE, is a direct violation of my rights. The quicker you learn this, the quicker we get back to actual freedom and liberty in this country. Until then, we are a nation run by a tyrannical government, under the consent of an uniformed and apathetic populace.

If the legislature gets some whiteout and erases the anti-marijuana legislation, does it all of a sudden become morally right? What do you plan to tell the those in prison, and those who have had families ruined, once marijuana becomes legal? "Oh, my bad, sorry about that...here, enjoy some free, legal, weed on us!"

Was slavery in the first 100+ years right? I mean, it was the law at the time. Do you not understand what I am saying?

The only rights we have, are the ones we are willing to fight for. I am personally willing to fight for my right to be self-owner of my body, mind, and soul. If you're not, so be it, but enjoy your life as the slave you truly are.

And your argument, then, is that if any ONE person in the country thinks that an action or an object is good, then it is constitutionally allowed?

And your rights of life, liberty and property can ALL be removed via statute. NOT just if you violate the law, either

For instance, the death penalty can be used to deprive you of life. Your liberty can be removed if you commit a crime worthy of imprisonment. And, if you had actually READ the Supreme Court case I cited, you would see that property can be removed for the common good.

Liberty is restricted for the common good. The highway system is an example of constrained liberty. You drive this speed HERE but that speed THERE... and can only drive this direction from these lanes.

By the way, property is NOT a listed constitutional provision.

However, you can lose even those constitutional right specifically granted. Felons lose the right to bear arms, for instance. But no one can own a working tank.

Ultimately, the general good is in the hands of the legislatures that decide what is in the general good.

Again, if you want the laws to change, write your congressman/woman.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

And your argument, then, is that if any ONE person in the country thinks that an action or an object is good, then it is constitutionally allowed?

And your rights of life, liberty and property can ALL be removed via statute. NOT just if you violate the law, either

For instance, the death penalty can be used to deprive you of life. Your liberty can be removed if you commit a crime worthy of imprisonment. And, if you had actually READ the Supreme Court case I cited, you would see that property can be removed for the common good.

Liberty is restricted for the common good. The highway system is an example of constrained liberty. You drive this speed HERE but that speed THERE... and can only drive this direction from these lanes.

By the way, property is NOT a listed constitutional provision.

However, you can lose even those constitutional right specifically granted. Felons lose the right to bear arms, for instance. But no one can own a working tank.

---

The only way for the government to take away your rights, is for you to take away the rights of another individual. That is what justice is.

If you're arguing one person can't make law stating an action/object is good, how then can you argue one person can make a law stating an action/object is bad? Like I said earlier, for general Welfare to be applicable, the legislation must be good for everyone. Hypocrisy and contradiction in action. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Ultimately, the general good is in the hands of the legislatures that decide what is in the general good.

Again, if you want the laws to change, write your congressman/woman.

---

I shouldn't have to write my Congressman (It won't do anything anyway. People have been protesting for decades for marijuana legalization...that's worked wonders), as it would be unconstitutional for Congress to make ANY law on marijuana/drug use. It's an INDIVIDUAL right, not a GOVERNMENT right.

What do you not understand about individual rights? How hard of a concept is it to grasp that each and every one of us has the right of "life, liberty, and property," and that included in this (or at least apparent to anyone with any understanding of the constitution(s) and individual rights) is the right of self-ownership. Since I am the "supreme sovereign" of my body, I choose to smoke marijuana in the privacy of my home. Any law prohibiting the such is absolutely unconstitutional and unAmerican.

If all you are going to do is just repeat the same tired crap over and over, I recommend you take your case to court.

Come back and let us know either how you won and we are all wrong or how Danny was as a roommate.

Quote:

---

Quoting Scofield

---

It's called General Welfare for a reason, otherwise the Founders would have just put "Welfare."

The prohibition of marijuana (or any other drug) doesn't help me nor the MILLIONS in prison, therefore it doesn't help the General Welfare.

-James Madison (Federalist 41)

-James Madison

- Thomas Jefferson

- Alexander Hamilton (emphasis added)

- Thomas Jefferson

- Thomas Jefferson

It's a shame the Constitution went from being a "clear-cut," "anyone can read it" document to being a brain teaser. How far we've come.

---

Thomas Jefferson was NOT a delegate to the Constitutional convention, so his quotes, if we are to be constitutionally literal, as you wish, mean nothing.

There were 55 delegates, you quote 2. Even if we are to assume they are factually correct that leaves the minds of 53 more, as there were 55 delegates. What/how did they interpret the general welfare clause?

By what authority did Congress have to appropriate money for the federal INTERSTATE system?? I suppose this was NOT a part of the general welfare since ALL citizens do not drive or use it?

By your reasoning it was UNconstitutional for the USSC to incorporate the Bill of Rights, or most of it, as applicable to the states, since the Founding Fathers did NOT mean it to be so!! Your argument is premised on the 4th AM, per your first post. So aren't you being somewhat redundant now??

You want the 4th AM to apply to you, and it does, yet the FF's did NOT mean it to, so what do you want??

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Thomas Jefferson was NOT a delegate to the Constitutional convention, so his quotes, if we are to be constitutionally literal, as you wish, mean nothing.

There were 55 delegates, you quote 2. Even if we are to assume they are factually correct that leaves the minds of 53 more, as there were 55 delegates. What/how did they interpret the general welfare clause?

By what authority did Congress have to appropriate money for the federal INTERSTATE system?? I suppose this was NOT a part of the general welfare since ALL citizens do not drive or use it?

By your reasoning it was UNconstitutional for the USSC to incorporate the Bill of Rights, or most of it, as applicable to the states, since the Founding Fathers did NOT mean it to be so!! Your argument is premised on the 4th AM, per your first post. So aren't you being somewhat redundant now??

You want the 4th AM to apply to you, and it does, yet the FF's did NOT mean it to, so what do you want??

---

He wants the silver bullet that allows him to smoke pot in his dorm room.

The same silver bullet that college students have been pursuing since 1960.

Explain exactly what happen to a lawyer if your lucky the case can be thrown out for some reason, a long shot.Find out about diversion or getting it dropped down..If all you had was a small amount it's just a violation unless they charged you for the vaporizer or something else.

"All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution."

It's not gonna work in court,go there and try .A judge or a da not going to listen to all your arguments,etc it could have the opposite effect. Let us know the results. Am not trying to be a dick,just the way it is. Your lawyer is your best weapon.

Explain exactly what happen to a lawyer, if your lucky the case can be thrown out for some reason, a long shot.Find out about diversion or getting it dropped down..If all you had was a small amount it's just a violation unless they charged you for the vaporizer or something else.

"All you've done is presume I'm going to fail when I go to court. Yet, not one word you've uttered has contradicted my interpretation of the Constitution."

It's not gonna work in court,go there and try .A judge or a da not going to listen to all your arguments,etc it could have the opposite effect. Let us know the results. Am not trying to be a dick,just the way it is. Your lawyer is your best weapon.